That's what they tell us. Light can travel through a vacuum with nothing in it. And maybe so but what is the evidence?
So I looked up the best vacuum on planet Earth. It contains 2.5 million molecules of air per cubic cm. This is said to replicate conditions between stars. So how then can we say we've ever tested light waves going through "nothing". We haven't.
To test the validity of my suspicions I've asked the science guys on reddit if they have an answer for this. The first few responses have already been hostile and that usually indicates this is one of those issues they simply don't have a good answer for. I was very polite in my question btw, so no I didn't provoke anybody, this is all on them.
We'll see how it goes. I'm open to a good explanation of why this is a valid test, but this light has 2 million molecules to interact with ever cubic cm it propagates, so you didn't rule out matter.
This is a popular (and popularized) misunderstanding. There is nothing preventing you, or anyone, from using a geocentric model or creating a new one from scratch. Models are meaningless. They are merely tools used for limited purpose. They are always wrong, and the reality to study is out here! (not in some model - a crude and extremely limited approximation of that actual reality built from an even more limited dataset)
Having a model that works (limitedly!) doesn't have any bearing on what actually is, and vice versa. Even if what you were saying were true (which it isn't), a geocentric model "falling apart" wouldn't and couldn't establish that the universe isn't geocentric. I recommend the documentary "the principle" on the subject (bearing in mind that it is catholic propaganda).
All of that aside, the world can/could be stationary without the universe being geocentric! Right?
Not really. The models are arbitrary. This is precisely what happened when we went from geocentric to heliocentric. We arbitrarily decided heliocentric was better because the math looked nicer - and this was the argument made to the pope at the time to make that switch. Check out "the principle". The world and the universe are whatever they are - they care nothing about our models (which are always wrong historically, by the by).
Arguably those exist, and the "mmx" (not an experiment, just an observation) is one of the quintessential ones. Not necessarily for geocentrism - but certainly for a largely stationary world.
Perhaps because aether is not electrons?
In fact, there can be no wave without matter! There are no waves possible without media (aka matter).
What did you have in mind? Generally - i don't need you to cite me a paper.
Aether is all pervasive. There is no part of existence devoid of it, however it is non uniform (otherwise waves within it would not be possible, for one).
Sagnac and linear Sagnac effect. It's a popular talking point among certain "kooks", but it is an established phenomenon.
That's not quite it though. As I said, the model was able to explain what the previous model struggled with. In order for me to consider geocentrism I'd need to see compelling reasoning of why the failings of that previous model need not apply under some new version of it.
But you're right, MMX could (*under the right circumstances) point to a stationary Earth. But more experiments could be done to see if this is valid, and would need to be before I'd even consider it. If I can explain MMX with Sagnac then I have no need to jump the shark and turn cosmology completely on its head.
I'm glad you mentioned that book is Catholic propaganda, in which case I'd need to read a different book.
If those effects weren't real, then the mmx would be meaningless as a measurement of motion.
That is incorrect, but it is a popularly taught/assumed misconception. Heliocentrism was not chosen over geocentricism for that reason, and the available models at the time of the choice had equal descriptive/predictive accuracy.
The point is that the models are always wrong. They are merely tools for limited use, doomed to expiration.
Wether you want to consider that the world may be stationary, or further that it may be the center of the observable universe as well - is completely up to you.
Consider this : when the geocentric model was prevailing - did that make the universe geocentric?
The failings or strengths of models are irrelevant to reality, and to what actually is. Science is empericism; it is about measurement - not models.
The mmx measured that the earth wasn't moving through space the way our cosmology/mythology said it was. God knows there are plenty of ways to rationalize that measurement in order to, paradoxically, reconcile it with "astronomical" motion as well - but it is important to recognize that this is primarily a philosophical decision, and further - one fueled by bias, not science.
The idea that the world was stationary was so philosophically abhorrent to the scientists/educated of the time that they arbitrarily discarded that as a possibility. Many of them admitted to that in their own words. Einstein would go on to believe that there was no optical apparatus that could ever be built to detect the motion that he just knew in his bones had to be there. From a few steps back, it is obviously bias and desperate delusion - whether or not the world is truly perpetually traveling at astronomical speed or not.
Explanations abound. It's the core of mythology, and largely - its purpose. I can "explain" the lightning as zeus throwing bolts.
Besides, you can't explain the mmx with sagnac. They are basically the same thing (except the sagnac apparatus was rotating). Interferometery works to detect motion, that we have well established. Mmx measured that our motion through "space" was negligable. Wether you want to believe that is a mistake and aether was dragged or any other contrived rationalization is again up to you.
It's a documentary, not a book. It also has lots of great historical information in it, and some of the most celebrated modern astrophysicists and cosmologists speaking in their own words on the subject.
However i (highly) recommend it with that caveat to make clear that the documentary is particularly biased. That doesn't mean it isn't well worth a watch or two!
The difference being one is moving with the medium, the other perpendicular to it. So we would expect different results. For Sagnac (including those showing linear motion, not only rotation) we see a fringe. That includes when the detector is NOT in rotation (some have tried to argue that this is the causal mechanism, but it is not). Therefore when the air is moving perpendicular to the light and with the detector as in the MMX aparatus, we would expect a null result.
I appreciate the recommendation, I will look into it.
In the mmx - ideally anyhow - the medium is stationary (in the local frame of reference).
The fringe occurs because of motion. The fringe that didn't appear in the mmx (or rather, didn't appear outside the range of error / vibration for the device) is the measurement of that lack of motion.
The sagnac i am familiar with is basically on a spinning kitchen dolly. When stationary - a circular/curved path - would be expected to exhibit a minor fringe pattern for the same reasons the circular gale pearson (also stationary) did.
It's the motion of the detector that is registered though, not the air. All the rlg's lasers go through fiber optic cable which surely doesn't have much gas within it nor would moving air affect its measurement (except, notably - through vibration).
They also rotated the apparatus many times to try and determine the "true" direction of motion of the earth around the sun. This ought to have dealt with that "perpendicular blindness issue" - right?
Please let me know your thoughts on it, and/or if you have trouble finding it. I've recommended it to others a few times too but haven't seen it in years. I think i ought to rewatch it myself and see if i still think as highly of it now as i did back then.